Feds Introduce Justice Reforms With C-75

• Author: Omar Ha-Redeye
• Date: April 01, 2018

The combined effects on Jordan and Cody on the justice system have been noticeable and palpable for anyone who regulars the courts, with 11(b) waivers by defence echoing the halls of courtrooms, and judicial pressure to have matters heard in a timely manner.

The impact on civil matters is even more pronounced. Without a Charter right to timely proceedings in private matters, many civil lawyers have been complaining about an even more pronounced delay in civil proceedings. The oft touted solution of increased judicial appointments obviously comes at an increased cost to the public purse, and so the government has also contemplated alternative solutions to this backlog.

Last Thursday, the federal government introduced Bill C-75, which introduces a number of reforms to the criminal justice system. Some of them are very clearly intended to address the Jordan effect, as explained by the Department of Justice,

Bill C-75 would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts, to reduce delays in the criminal justice system and to make it more modern and efficient. These amendments would respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in R. v. Jordan (2016) and R. v. Cody (2017), and also address concerns identified in the June 2017 Senate Report “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”. Bill C-75 proposes broad changes, including with respect to modernization and clarification of bail, the way administration of justice offences are addressed, preliminary inquiries, the classification of a number of criminal offences, and judicial case management.

The removal of preliminary inquiries for all offences, except those punishable by imprisonment for life, has been floated in some circles over the past year, but there are good reasons to proceed with this step with caution. The Globe editorial last year stated,

Defence lawyers see it differently. Eliminating a step that might force a Crown prosecutor to concede that the evidence against their client is weaker than advertised is not something they would naturally support.

As my classmate from Western Law Stephanie DiGiuseppe has noted, preliminary inquiries perform a similar function as examinations for discovery in civil trials. There would be a greater opportunity to test the evidence if sued for sexual assault than if an offender was arrested for it.

Defence lawyers Anne London-Weinstein of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa and Leonardo Russomanno of the Criminal Lawyers Association stated in the Ottawa Citizen last year,

There is no evidence...